52 



but from animal welfare groups. Frankly, I never expected that many of them would 

 be able to identify with our program. Their philosophy is overly protective and their 

 solutions are unnecessarily burdensome and expensive. 



We hope that you understand the tremendous progress made by the "negotiations" 

 and that you identify with this program, which is supported by so many in the con- 

 servation and fishing community. We request that you incorporate this proposal, 

 with all of its components and subtleties, into the M^ff*A. 



Thank you! 



Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomburgh. Mr. Gil- 

 man. 



STATEMENT OF BRAD GILMAN, THE GULF OF ALASKA 



COALITION 



Mr. Oilman. Mr. Chairman, my name is Brad Oilman. I rep- 

 resent the Oulf of Alaska Coalition. We are comprised of coastal 

 Alaskan communities, fishermen and shore-based processors that 

 have a definite stake in resolving this issue quickly. 



My fishermen include both Alaskan Native Aleut fishermen and 

 Alaskan Native subsistence users in the Western Oulf of Alaska 

 and the Northern Bering Sea. 



I am going to just suspend the first three pages of my oral testi- 

 mony, because I have dealt with it in the written testimony and, 

 instead, use the remainder of my time to list the position of the co- 

 alition on what we consider to be the substantive issues in dispute. 



First, our proposal does not weaken the protection which has ex- 

 isted for marine mammals. Prior to the Kokechik decision, fisher- 

 men were authorized to incidentally take marine mammals and 

 were allowed to intentionally shoot animals off the stern deck to 

 protect gear and catch. As part of the 1988 amendments, the Con- 

 gress permitted these practices to continue unrestrained. Our pro- 

 posal, in contrast, prohibits intentional lethal kills and sets statu- 

 tory benchmark requirements for fishermen to meet over time. 



Second, the Congress should not continue a centralized registra- 

 tion system on a nationwide basis. The Congress should instead di- 

 rect all available funds to resolving the problems within the hot 

 spot fisheries. Management measures are likely to include fishery- 

 specific or region-specific registration systems to verify fishing ef- 

 fort by time and area. A nationwide registration system would 

 serve only to consume scarce resources. 



Third, specific management measures should not be specified by 

 law. For instance, there should be no mandatory requirement for 

 a specific level of observer coverage or log book reporting. Each hot 

 spot fishery will have its own unique set of facts and cir- 

 cumstances. Maximum flexibility should be given to the conserva- 

 tion teams and the Secretary of Commerce to creatively deal with 

 interaction levels. The adoption of uniform national management 

 measures over situation-specific conservation regimes would in 

 many cases cause confusion, frustration and lead to ridiculous re- 

 sults. 



Fourth, there should be no blanket prohibition on the taking of 

 depleted, threatened or endangered species under the MMPA. The 

 regulatory authority of NOAA, under the Endangered Species Act, 

 to prevent jeopardy to the continued existence of threatened or en- 

 dangered species is more than sufficient. 



